This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Wu at center of sex allegation

Originally Posted by PeteEU

So a democrat caught with his pants down... a big so what.. or is he one of those rare family values democrats promoting abstinence and the sanctity of marriage as one of his core beliefs? If so.. freaking hypocrite!.. if not... again so what...

So what? I'll tell you so what: it's a crime for an adult to engage in sexual activity--consesual, or not--with a minor.

Re: Wu at center of sex allegation

So what? I'll tell you so what: it's a crime for an adult to engage in sexual activity--consesual, or not--with a minor.

And the girl happens to be 18 (at least they say her age cannot be verified, but she graduated from high school). So it's not certain if she is a minor, but probably not.

Last edited by StillBallin75; 07-23-11 at 10:52 PM.

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.

Re: Wu at center of sex allegation

from Wiki

In February 2011, Willamette Week[10] and later The Oregonian reported that in the runup to the November 2010 election, Wu began behaving erratically and that staffers "demanded he enter a hospital for psychiatric treatment."[11] The erratic behavior that triggered the staff's departure was reported to be no single incident but rather a pattern of behavior that included Wu's emailing his staff photos of himself in a tiger suit.[12]

Re: Wu at center of sex allegation

Originally Posted by apdst

There you go; we don't know how she was when Wu raped her. The rape occured in November.

She graduated high school in 2010, and registered to vote in August. She's likely at least 18 years old. In addition, the charge was sexual assault, not rape, and Wu insists it was consensual. I'm not making excuses for the guy, but there's no proof that a crime was committed as of yet. At this point it's just a bunch of he-said she-said.

Also, Wu has a history of sexual assault and mental illness. He needs to resign immediately.

Can't say I disagree, but I'll leave that up to his constituents to decide.

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.

Re: Wu at center of sex allegation

Also, this cracks me up:

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.